WhyNotVote?

Somepastorshavesuggestedoverthepastcoupleofmonthsthatweconsidertakinga voteamongordainedSGMpastorstodeterminewhetherornotC.J.returnsfromhis leaveofabsence.Thereasonsoftenvary,butthecommonthemeisthatitwouldhelp torestoretrustintheBoardandCJiftheboardletgoofthedecisionandalloweditto bedeterminedbyavote.TheideascomefrommenwholoveSGManddesiretoseeus movetogetherinstrengthandtrusttowardthefuture. Trustbuildingisapriorityforusinatimelikethis,andwehavediscussedwaysboth asaboardandwithmanyofyoutorebuildtrustwhereithasbeenshakenwithin SovereignGrace.Butwedontbelievethevotingoptionistherightwaytohandlethis nordowebelieveitwouldbeeffective.Infact,itcouldbecounterproductive.Heres why. Theissueathand Theprimaryissuefacingtheinterimboardwasthis:DotheallegationsagainstC.J. madebyBrentDetwilerdisqualifyC.J.frombeingpresidentofSGM?Thedistribution ofBrentsdocumentsplacedintocirculationseriouschargesaboutC.J.scharacterand ethicalintegrity,therebyraisingquestionsabouthisqualificationtoserveasSGMs president.Itwastheinterimboardsmandatetodevelopaprocessbywhichthese chargescouldbeexamined.Forhispart,C.J.tookaLeaveofAbsencesoasnotto influenceorunderminethecredibilityofthisprocess. Theprocessofreviewingtheseallegationsisnowcomplete.Thereviewpanelshave deliveredtotheboardcareful,wellresearched,andobjectiveassessmentsofBrents charges,andtheyfoundinthemnobasisforC.J.sdisqualificationfromservingas president.Therefore,theonlyreasonableactiontheboardcantakeistoreturnC.J.to thepresidency.Tofailtodosowouldhaveanumberofdetrimentaleffects: Itwouldunderminetheobjectivityofthereviewprocess.Thepanelswere formedtoprovideanobjectiveassessmentofBrentsallegationsandofC.J.s fitnesstoserveaspresidentinlightofthoseallegations.Tofailtoactonthe basisofthereportsistounderminethelegitimacyofajust,biblicalprocessby whichtoweighchargesagainstaleader. Itwouldcreateaninjusticebyunderminingdueprocess.ToputC.J.srestoration toavotewouldchangethetermsofhisreinstatement,whichfromthe beginninghasbeenbasedupontheresultsofthepanelsfindings.Thiswould underminethedueprocesswecarefullyputintoplaceandtreatC.J.unjustly.

 ItwouldimportadditionalandunrelatedcriteriaintothedecisiontorestoreC.J. PuttingC.J.sreinstatementtoavotewouldactuallyconfusetwoseparate issues:C.J.sethical/characterqualificationstoserveaspresidentandhislong termsuitabilitytoserveaspresident.BothhisLeaveofAbsenceandthereview processwererelatedtotheformer,andneitherwasintendedtospeaktothe latter.ThequestionofwhetherC.J.isthebestpersontoserveasSGMs presidentlongtermisanimportantissue,however,thatisnottheissuethe interimboardwasaddressing,anditseemsinappropriatetoimportthatissue intothecurrentprocess.OfcoursethequestionofwhoshouldserveSGMas thenextpresidentisonethatthepermanentboardwillneedtoaddress immediatelyuponitsformation. TheBoardisinformed Throughourowninternalreviewsandthepanelreports,theBoardhasgathered, reviewed,anddiscussedthevalidityofBrentsallegationsmorethananyothergroup. Thatwasourmandateandwebelievewevebeenthoroughandimpartialinmeetingit. Atthesametime,disturbingamountsofmisinformationhavebeenspreadviaBrentand othersaboutC.J.thathavecoloredthepublicopinionontheseissues.Becausewewere chargedwithcreatinganimpartialprocessandtrustwasdamaged,wedidnotengagein publiclydefendingC.J.(orSGM)againstthemanyfalsereportsthathavebeen published,digested,andacceptedbysomeasvalid.Wekepttheseconversationsin privatevenues.Apublicresponseinthisclimatecouldhaveunderminedthecredibility ofthepanelsandcreateddeeperconfusionconcerningourprioritiesandfocus.And therewereotherreasons,too,whyweoftenhadtokeepquiet.Someoftherelevant evidencewelearnedcametousinconfidenceandwewerentatlibertytouseittoour advantageasapublicdefense.Anumberofthingswelearnedreflectedpoorlyonother parties,andwedidnotfeelitwasappropriatetomakesuchinformationpublic.At otherpoints,wesimplynotedthatgettingintoonlinebackandforthswithBrentand otherswouldultimatelybeunproductive.Weareinfactnowwonderingwhetherour silencewaswiseandtowhatextentitmayhaveleftslanderandfalsereports unaddressed. Thisunfortunatedynamiclotsofmisinformationbeingspread,andlotsoflimitations onourabilitytocounteractithascreatedasituationinwhichonlytheBoardisreally informedonthecontextandvalidityofaccusations.Thingsthatshouldneverhavebeen discussedpubliclyarenowopenquestionsthatwecantinintegrityfullysatisfyforthe public.Tocompoundourcommunicationchallenge,forseveralyearstheinformation wesendonlytopastorshasbeenfrequentlyforwardedtothosewhorunthecritic blogs,whichmeansthatitisntevenpossibleforustocommunicateprivatelywithour pastorsasagroupanylonger.Thisisadifficultleadershipchallenge,onethatmanyof youmenfaceaswellinthecontextofprivatelyaddressingyourcongregations.

 Wherethatleavesusisthis:forreasonsoutsideourcontrolandowingnothingtothe qualityofmenwehaveservinginourchurches,noteverypastorisadequatelyoreven equallyqualifiedtomakeaninformeddecision.ThisopensthepossibilitythatC.J.could beclearedoftheverychargesthatpromptedtheleaveofabsencebutstilllosehis positionnotbecauseheisguiltybutbecausehemightnotbepopularenoughinthe presentclimate.Wedontwanttoseethathappentoanypastor.Inthesecasesthe groupwithconstitutionalauthoritymustbethemostinformedgroup.Andtheymust havethefreedomtomakethewisestdecisionsinthefearoftheLordandwiththe supportoftheirconstituencyastheydo. Otherconcerns Thefollowingarenotthedrivingissues,buthereareotherconsiderationsthatcame intoplayinourdiscussions: Webelievethatsubjectingthistoavotecreatesanunhealthyprecedent forunjustremovalofleaders,onethatwillunavoidablyputupward pressureonyourpastoralteamifapastorfacesslanderousallegations. Wedonotwanttosetaprecedentforyouinwhichyourcongregation expectstomanagedecisionswhichScripturedelegatestoelders(1Tim. 5:1921,cf.Deut.19:1517) Webelievetheeffectofavoteatthistimehastheriskofpoliticizingthe decision,creatingapolarizingredstatevs.bluestatedynamicthat wouldbeunhealthyforSGMespeciallygiventhemajordecisionswe stillneedtowalkthroughtogether.Wewanttodowhatwecantoavoid factionsandopendivisions. Inourbylaws,theresponsibilitytoinstallandremoveaPresidentis clearlyentrustedbymemberchurchestotheBoard.AoRstrongly counseledustohonorintheirinitialreport:InspiteofBrents allegations,SGMscurrentbylaws,doctrine,andpracticeallindicatethat theSGMBoardhasfinalresponsibilityfordecidingwhoshallbe appointedorremovedasaBoardmemberorofficer.Churcheswithin theSGMfamilyhaveagreedtoMembershipAgreementsthatsupport thisarrangement.Accordingly,thechurcheshaveassentedtothis systemofgovernance.Fromabiblicalpointofview,theSGMBoardhas boththeresponsibilityandauthoritytodecidesuchmatters,andSGM memberchurcheshavecommittedthemselvestohonoringthissystem ofauthority.(ConsultationReport,pg.17)Asweconsideredpolity adaptationsatourfirstinterimboardretreat,Tedsaid,Oneofthe biggestmistakesagroupcanmakeistochangeitspolityinthemidstofa crisis.Thisisntsufficientonitsown,butnordowedonttakeAoRs counsellightly.

Recentlywereceivedalettersignedbymorethan40SGMpastorsthat servedtoremindusthatmanypastorsarelookingtoustomakethe decisionaboutC.J.sreturn.Sowhileavotewouldbuildtrustwithsome, itwouldweakenitwithotherswhodontwantthatapproach. Webelieveavoteundulyremovesjustcauseasaconsiderationin handlingchargesagainstanelder,inthiscase,againstC.J.Aswenoted earlier,hisleavewasinresponsetoBrentsallegations,sothequestion theBoardfacesis,InlightofBrentsallegations,istheresufficientand objectivegroundstoremoveC.J.fromtheofficeofpresident?Butina voteaskingShouldwereturnC.J.asPresident?,thereisnowayto ensurethateveryoneisdecidingthesameissue.Again,deliberating DoesC.J.havetherightgiftstoleadSGMintothefuture?isavalid question,onethatanyPresidentshouldbesubjectto.Butitwillnotbea justevaluationofcharges,norwoulditprovideajustcauseforC.J.s exonerationorremovalifpastorsvoteonthePresidencyquestionbased onthewrongfactors.

Onefinalthought:theAoRGroupReconciliationReport AfewpeoplehavesuggestedthatwedelaythedecisionconcerningC.J.sreinstatement untilAoRpresentsuswithitsreportfromtheGroupReconciliation(GR)process.We understandthisimpulsebutfeelthatwouldalsobeinappropriateduetothedistinct differencebetweenthepanelreviewprocessandtheGRprocess. Thepanelsweredesignedspecificallytoaddressthepotentialareasofdisqualification stemmingfromBrentschargesandleadingtoC.J.sleave.Thesepanelscouldcallany andallwitnessestheydesired,andtheyproducedathoroughandobjectiveaccounting oftheirfindings.AoRsGRprocesswasnotdesignedtoevaluateC.J.squalificationfor thepresidency,andtouseitthatwaywouldbeinappropriate.IntheGRprocess, individualswithgrievancesfromacrossSGMhadtheopportunitytoweighinontheir experiences.Wecertainlywanttolearnallthatwecanfromthis,butthiswasnot designedtorenderajudgmentonCJ,norwoulditbeeffectiveindoingsothatis neithertheintentionnordesignofthisprocess.Thesearesimplyinterviewswithaview towardpersonalreconciliation;thereisnocrossexamination,nohearingofwitnesses, nocorroboratingtestimony,noranyotherfactorwhichisnecessarytoestablishfact, allocateguilt,locateculpability,etc.SoitwouldbeillegitimatetousetheGRreportas aninstrumentofadjudicationortoextractfromitanobjectiveassessmentofCJandhis qualificationtobepresident.

 Conclusion Theinterimboardisexcitedaboutafuturethatinvolvesourpastorsmoreineverything frompolityrefinementstoregionalcare.Weseethestrengtheningvaluethatbringsto ourfamilyofchurchesandtheownershipitcreatesamongourpastors,andhopetosee itbuiltintotheframeworkforpartnership(andpolity)thatwemovetowardinthenear future.MayGodhelpusarrivethereinthesameinthesamewaywestarted.together forthegloryofGod!